75 replies to this topic

[Baelfire]

Heffay, on 22 July 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

I take it you're a vegetarian then?

I hunt. I don't enjoy killing, but I do it because it provides me with a lot of tasty meat, the options that deer have are starve to death, freeze to death or be torn apart by coyotes, and factory farms bother me a lot so I do what I can to not support them.

I also fish, which I'm assuming you have problems with?

Well, to be fair, you also said that all your guns are for fun. If you use them for hunting, doesn't that also imply that you enjoy the killing? Because im pretty sure you don't use your gun once the animal is dead.

However, a discussion about the ethics of hunting is offtopic anyway, because it has almost nothing to do with gun control/ restriction. Even with the german model you could go hunting if you get your hunting license, unless you are mentally not stable enough to own a weapon, in which case you should't own a weapon anyway. We even have shooting clubs where you can shoot for sports and recreation, so this not an argument either.

There is a big difference between making all guns illegal and restricting the access to weapons to people who are able to use them responsibly. The main problem in the USA is not, that there can be no good middle ground between owning weapons and protecting the society from abuse. It is an outdated attitude toward weapons, which gloryfies them as a pillar of freedom and personal safety.

200 years ago a man and his musket could made a difference for defending your country and freedom from invaders, today that is no longer true. Both, the USA and Germany, are part of the NATO and whoever is able to defeat those multinational defense force will not be scared away by a few handguns. Not to mention the arsenal of nuclear weapons the USA owns.

[Heffay]

Baelfire, on 22 July 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

Well, to be fair, you also said that all your guns are for fun. If you use them for hunting, doesn't that also imply that you enjoy the killing? Because im pretty sure you don't use your gun once the animal is dead.

Correct, I should have differentiated between my hunting guns and fun guns. Some of them can fulfill multiple purposes (12 gauge shotgun can be used for trap/*****, or bird hunting, or even deer hunting), but as a general rule I use the best tool for the job. I have a specialized 20 gauge shotgun designed to fire rifled slugs for deer hunting, as I hunt in a shotgun only zone. I'm only interested in taking clean shots, because 1) I don't want the animal to suffer, and 2) I don't want to track a deer more than 10 feet.

Baelfire, on 22 July 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

200 years ago a man and his musket could made a difference for defending your country and freedom from invaders, today that is no longer true. Both, the USA and Germany, are part of the NATO and whoever is able to defeat those multinational defense force will not be scared away by a few handguns. Not to mention the arsenal of nuclear weapons the USA owns.

You're assuming a limited case where the military operates as a single unit. We have a very recent example (Turkey) where this clearly wasn't the case. I always though arguments based on "to defend yourself from the government" were stupid though, so I'll drop this whole line of discussion. It's irrelevant, because there is still no legitimate reason to ban guns when there are clearly much more effective ways of dealing with the problems.

And that leads to an interesting case: Say the US did legalize and regulate drugs, and gun crime dropped 80%, below what the rest of the 1st world experiences. Would you still argue for gun control? If so.... why?

[t Khrist]

Heffay, on 22 July 2016 - 04:30 PM, said:

And that leads to an interesting case: Say the US did legalize and regulate drugs, and gun crime dropped 80%, below what the rest of the 1st world experiences. Would you still argue for gun control? If so.... why?

I would not, because the issue of this discussion would be solved. I don't care how it happens, I just agree that the band-aid would slow the bleeding, until a more effective solution (like some form of drug legalization) was thought of and agreed upon. It's hard enough for society to stay focused on one major issue, let alone try and wrap their poor heads around solving one by fixing another lol.

[Heffay]

t Khrist, on 24 July 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

I would not, because the issue of this discussion would be solved. I don't care how it happens, I just agree that the band-aid would slow the bleeding, until a more effective solution (like some form of drug legalization) was thought of and agreed upon. It's hard enough for society to stay focused on one major issue, let alone try and wrap their poor heads around solving one by fixing another lol.

I just don't like the band aid solution, because there is no taking it off. It's not like once a drug regulation program is implemented the government is going to say "Ok, here are your AR-15s back."

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I'm not sure what the topic is here. :/

If the topic is gun control, I'll say...

In the united states, there are about 30,000 gun related fatalities per year. Not all of those 30k are homicides. Some are suicide, others are self defense, in some cases they were accidental shootings. Statistically about 200,000 women in the united states use a gun to protect themself from a ****** each year. Between guns protecting women from sexual assault and guns being used for self defense the argument could be made that guns save more lives than they destroy. A case can also be made for countries like india legalizing guns for women so that they can defend themselves from rapists. If one looks at the facts we can see that guns are not only used for murder, they also have a valid role in terms of defense and people protecting themselves. Unfortunately the media has a strong anti gun bias and gives people distorted ideas of things and misleads the public into believing guns can only be used for crime and violence.

About 250,000 americans die each year from medical errors that were preventable. Near to ten times more fatalities than guns. When will the media call for medical error control -- for programs to make healthcare safer and reduce unnecessary medical errors which result in such a high loss of life?

The media pushes a ridiculous bias where they influence people into believing loss of life is only immoral if a person loses their life to a gun. They also push a bias where they influence europeans into believing violence and crime are only immoral if a gun is used. Gun control isn't a campaign based on facts, evidence or statistics. Gun control isn't a movement to save lives. If saving lives were the issue there would be more focus on preventable medical errors having a death toll of 250,000.

Gun control is about control. Disarming the public so that large corporations and banks can treat the public more unfairly. Disarming citizens so that they can be screwed with higher taxes, lower wages, less health insurance, longer average working days. That's the real goal of gun control.

Also I know some people say it doesn't matter if people bear arms because they could never win a war with the government. But that argument is like saying a person shouldn't lock their door when they go out because a battering ram could break it down. Or a person shouldn't use passwords because they can be brute forced. Even if an armed public with the right to bear arms isn't foolproof in most cases its enough of a deterrent to prevent a state from screwing the average working man enough to start a civil war.

[Baelfire]

You actually can win a war against your government, there are many cases who prove that. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunion of Germany, the independence of India or the end of the Apartheid in South Africa are good examples. For the United States of America, Martin Luther KIng proved that you can beat the american government without resorting to violence. You don't need guns to fight the government, courage and a toothbrush are already enough.

There are so many countries in the EU with very strict gun regulation laws and the people over there do not get oppressed by their governments, employers or bankers. In many of those countries the living standard is actually higher than in the USA, with a better health insurance and a better public safety. They all prove your arguments wrong.

I grew up when the Iron Curtain was still up and there was an actual chance that Germany could be invaded by Russia. I was there when the Berlin Wall went down and it was the people, not guns, who brought it down. And, unlike the USA, the DDR was not a democratic system and the population was not protected by civil rights. I just cannot understand the huge amount of angst i encountered in some parts of the country during my time in the United States. It is just not reasonable. You are protected by civil rights, live in a democracy with an elected government and are protected by one of the strongest armies (even without the NATO) and a huge amount of nuclear weapons. You should feel safe, but instead you allow your distrust and fears to hold you as hostages.

Edited by Baelfire, 24 July 2016 - 07:58 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Baelfire, on 24 July 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:

You are protected by civil rights

Civil rights are words on a piece of paper that can change with a pen and a flick of the wrist.

I don't think its wise to trust a government, to believe they care about the health and safety of the people they govern. Trusting the government is like trusting a complete stranger with your money, your freedom and your future. If you wouldnt trust a complete stranger with those things, why would you trust the government?

This idea that people have where they think its ok if they're disarmed because the government will protect them is wrong.

[Karl Streiger]

Of course you might distrust your government but wouldn't it be better to go for a country were you might trust the democratic leaders - oh wait.

As a person who is not collecting information's about politics the only information you get are those that are delivered by journalists.
Usually they paint a picture based on the political side of the newspaper.
So you might need some deeper dining usually the protocol of a meeting because those are mostly open for the public.
When your country has a strong opposition you get some "truth" by listening to this opposition.
Of course you have to filter it again because of bias.
And you start to realize that decision can't be trusted but on the other hand the number of politicians strong enough and fearless enough to talk the truth is getting lower.
Some are mad - maybe not but I would rather eat my own arm but to thrust a nationalist or republican or whatever their name is

So you think gun protect you from harm or gouverment?

The case of ****** is 'interesting' but don't you think this should be solved by federal justice and penalties rather than self justice?
For example public castration or branding - at least the victim should have a word in choosing the penalty.
What about prostitution, would legal federal controlled prostitution increase or decrease the number of ****?
I think religion should not be part of any decisions or law of a gouverment the pitty is it is.

Interesting to see the DDR not be called a democracy and you are right it was a democracy just by name and there was no right of privacy
Only on paper - neighbors spying on others - shooting and mines at the borders - guantanamo style handling of people who did want to flee the country and elections that had only one outcome - but you were forced to go to vote.
But as long as you were a nice working bee everything was fine
But education and social system was good (better? hard to say)- indoctrination and keeping civilians under arms was also very strong (including person cult - or at least this is what I remember It was just my second year in school when the wall came down.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 July 2016 - 09:05 PM.

[Baelfire]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 24 July 2016 - 08:43 PM, said:

ALSO THE DDR WAS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!!!

No it was simply not.

In a real democracy you do not have to imprison your people in your country with walls and landmines and you do not shoot hundreds of people who are just trying to leave the country. Democracies do not have a political police force who throws you into a jail for years just because you listened to a foreign radio station or said something negative about the government. During elections there are more than just one political party and you do not get results like 99.99% in favor the current government.

The people who went on the streets during the monday demonstration in 1989 actually risked their freedom, if not their lives. They brought courage and a toothbrush, not guns. Their slogans were "We are the people" and " A free country for free people".

Believe me, i was there when the wall came down.

Edited by Baelfire, 24 July 2016 - 09:58 PM.

[Baelfire]

You don't get it. You could not stay away or vote "no", that simply was not allowed. It was a rigged election that had always the same predetermined outcome. The citizen of the DDR did not have cilvil rights like freedom of speech or other fundamental rights of a modern democracy, they were prisoners in their own country.

And you should not blindly trust your government, no one should. Actually it is very important for a democracy that the government gets observed and controled by its citizen. I just disagree that guns and violence are a proper way to do it.

During the 80s a lot of young people in Germany felt left alone by our political parties. But instead of grabbing a gun, they formed a new political party call "the Greens" which represented their own political agenda. It took a few years but now they are not only a established political party, their pure existence forced the other parties to react and to take a position to some topics they used to ignore. Right now we have Pegida and the AfD who express their disappointment with our current government, which they can do thanks to Art. 5 of the german basic law (freedom of speech and information). That is how you react to things you don't like and how you change the political landscape.

Edited by Baelfire, 24 July 2016 - 10:48 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 24 July 2016 - 10:07 PM, said:

Um dude... Democracy doesn't say you can't cage in your populace. It simply means your populace have a vote in their government. Which... you did. Those same people who went out in the streets, could have voted against the current government and changed that 99.99%.

Well you could go to vote - heck afaik you were questioned when you didn't go.
And of course you could give your vote to any political party - but when you didn't choose the party that might win you would be questioned (maybe) - and in the end the main party SED always won the vote.

It was a dictatorship in all but name (the DDR had only 3 political leaders in almost 40 years)
When you look at the Cold War at this time - this was necessary somehow. DDR was the front line - as was the BRD - pretty sure the solid I'm living on would have been life hostile ground today when War had happened.

including chemical and biological weapons, tactical nukes - the full program. Stuff is it doesn't matter what the government of either BRD or DDR would have done. It doesn't matter what each and every person in both countries would have done - things that could have happened every single second were out of our control.

And it was more a coincidence that the protesters that "brought" down the wall - were not imprisoned or worse.
And it its also a pitty what the western countries made out of this process - heck we are almost back in a cold war state. and the NATO is violating treaties

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 24 July 2016 - 08:43 PM, said:

Um... Germany is a republic with a parliamentary democracy... And Germans have had civil rights too, even with the wall for instance: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Ratified in 1969
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Ratified in 1973
First Optional Protocol (ICCPR) Accession in 1993
Second Optional Protocol (ICCPR) Ratified in 1992

Those are just a few of several many of which were before the wall came down. So your argument about not having civil rights is completely invalid.

ALSO THE DDR WAS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC!!!!

Literally half your arguments are untrue. The DDR's name alone says it all man. Deutsche Demokratische Republik or German Democratic Republic.

Lol, this is classic. You argue about civil rights with a German who lived while the DDR regime was in place,just after telling me, and I quote

Quote

I am ignoring you because you know NOTHING about living in America besides what you read online.

And I can't believe you bring the argument "The DDR's name alone says it all man". That's why North Korea is a perfectly democratic country, too, right?

[Karl Streiger]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

You do know that Germany is a part of NATO right? That means your government is also breaking these treaties and not helping anything at all. Again like I said before, your government probably hasn't learned its lesson, it is probably just in fear. And when you say "pitty what the western countries made out of this process"... can you hardly blame us? I mean there is a reason that America has 60+ Military bases in your country (haven't even started on the other nations). Honestly there is a reason.

Our government is a puppet government that will do anything to please their US masters
Joke aside this **** is to serious - and I really hope there will never be a "anti missile" umbrella installed in Poland.
Not because I wish anybody harm but because to keep the status quo.

Fear? You are always talking about fear? What fear do you mean?

[Karl Streiger]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

Technically it is... they do have the choice dude. They just don't make any other choice out of fear. Fear based society doesn't change the fact that it is a democracy. Also there are many other factors going into what make North Korea a democracy.

Also: ahem, you continued to debate about America so... I'll debate about Germany.

Hmmm lets see:

In Germany I bet your government fears the populace to some extent, I bet the people are wary of your government given the fact that it had been absolute **** for 90% of the 20th Century.

And I can guarantee there is still fear over past political parties such as Neo-{Godwin's Law} and socialist movements. Hence why Germany constantly arrest people that technically should be allowed to speak and rally under your own laws.

There is fear from all around Germany because, and lets faced it, every time Germany went unchecked by the outside in the last century it started a World War... just saying there is a reason for those 60+ military bases.

There is clear fear. It may not be on the surface and it probably isn't that much displayed, but there is no other reason for some of the actions that have taken place.

Oh Germany started two world wars? That is a very very simplistic vision of the events. But I don't blame you.

Germany isn't the reason for those bases - again very simplistic view. We also have McDonalds or Burger King or KFCs - so US have to feed Germany?

About the "free" speach... well I think I can agree you. I also want to read a non edited version of "Kein Mampf" but impossible to get one in Germany.

Fear? No? Forced political correctness fits better

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 July 2016 - 01:37 AM.

[RedDragon]

I Zeratul I, on 24 July 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

Gun control is about control. Disarming the public so that large corporations and banks can treat the public more unfairly. Disarming citizens so that they can be screwed with higher taxes, lower wages, less health insurance, longer average working days. That's the real goal of gun control.

I see where you are coming from. But I have yet to see the American people rise up against the government with the force of guns to take back control after things like the financial crisis of '07/'08, the NSA openly spying on US citizens, manipulations on elections etc. pp. - After all basically everything you said already is happening, but guns don't solve those problems. I could understand that argument if it was any different in the US than it is in other countries, but you have the exact same problems we have over here with our governments and guns don't seem to help at all.

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 01:32 AM, said:

"Technically" it is... they do have the choice dude. They just don't make any other choice out of fear. Fear based society doesn't change the fact that it is a democracy. Also there are many other factors going into what make North Korea a democracy.

I am not saying the DDR or Korea were/are good or functioning democracies. I am just saying that technically and realistically they actually are. The problem is that the democracies had to much power and were/are abusing such power drastically.

Also: ahem, you continued to debate about America so... I'll debate about Germany.

Hmmm lets see:

In Germany I bet your government fears the populace to some extent, I bet the people are wary of your government given the fact that it had been absolute **** for 90% of the 20th Century.

And I can guarantee there is still fear over past political parties such as Neo-{Godwin's Law} and socialist movements. Hence why Germany constantly arrest people that technically should be allowed to speak and rally under your own laws.

There is fear from all around Germany because, and lets faced it, every time Germany went unchecked by the outside in the last century it started a World War... just saying there is a reason for those 60+ military bases.

There is clear fear. It may not be on the surface and it probably isn't that much displayed, but there is no other reason for some of the actions that have taken place.

Nope, not even "technically". In name only. You had the so called "Einheitsliste", a list of names presented by the government which were up for vote, and you could only agree on that list. There was neither the possibility to vote "no", nor could you refrain from voting.

And I (unlike you) don't want to deny you the right to discuss Germany. It just makes you totally non-credible if you on the one hand tell people they have no idea about your country and thus shouldn't argue about it, and on the other hand you try to educate people on their own history.
Minds are like parachutes: They only work while being open.

Oh and on the World Wars ... Karl already said it. That's a childish oversimplicfication. WW1 wasn't caused by Germany, it only made the first formal declaration of war. I know you will insist on your point, but if you want to broaden your horizon a bit, there is a relatively recent book on the causes of the war by Christopher Clark, titeld "The Sleepwalkers". He did a lot of thorough work with the sources there, great read.
And WW2 basically happended "because" Germany was checked by the rest of the world.

Edited by RedDragon, 25 July 2016 - 01:52 AM.

[Baelfire]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 01:03 AM, said:

... You don't understand how America works at all.

I learned how your elections work 30 years ago in school, because i had history/sociology as major subject. I also lived almost 3 years in the United States, including one election, so i actually have a pretty good understanding how your voting system works.

Your knowledge on the other hand seems to consist of half-truth and assumptions. Freedom of speech is actually a granted right in Germany, racist insults and incitement to criminal behavior are not. As a matter of fact we have muslim preachers in Germany who, more or less, openly support ISIS, but as long as they don't ask their followers to commit a crime they are allowed to preach.

The use of the Swastika is not completely prohibited like most americans think, it just restricted to education (history books),art (movies) and similar serious matters. Video games are considered entertainment and thus locked out from the use. This is a relict from the past (if you are interested inform yourself about the allied control council and the de-nazification process), but most germans do not miss this things in any way possible. Saying that this means no freedom of speech is pretty much the same as to say, that there is no freedom of speech as long as the KKK cannot burn crosses in every front yard they want.

Karl Streiger, on 25 July 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

About the "free" speach... well I think I can agree you. I also want to read a non edited version of "Kein Mampf" but impossible to get one in Germany.

Well, the copyrights are owned by Bavaria and they recently decided, that enough time has passed now and that it would be a good idea to publish a version with comments for scientific research. So you will be able to read it in a few years, i guess. However, i don't see why this means that there is no freedom of speech in Germany, after all the US government is holding back information sometimes as well, like all those data about the Kennedy assassination.

Edited by Baelfire, 25 July 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

Karl said earlier that you could refrain from voting you'd probably just get questioned for it. And again were they holding guns to people's heads saying "Sie stimmen!"? Um no... You did have a choice. Like I said you wouldn't like the consequences for said choice but you DID HAVE ONE.

Again, it was not a "vote" per se, it was an acknowledgement of a predefined list of names. There was no opposition you could vote on. And if you didn't show up for the "vote", you became highly suspicious and had to fear being interrogated by the Stasi. The same was true if you tried to use a booth to cast your vote secretly. And believe me, you didn't want this. And even though nearly everyone succumbed to the pressure, they also rigged the votes to reach almost 100% every year. In 1986, there was a voter participation of 99,74 %, with 99,94 % of the people voting "yes". You can't get such numbers in a democracy. Just beleive me/us, it was no democracy. It is no shame to admit when you are wrong. I am an historian myself, but that wouldn't even be necessary - we Germans are educated on this from being a child until we leave school. But if you still don't believe it, read some literature on the topic, I can recommend you some titles if you want. But please don't insist on something obviously being wrong.

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

World War 1 was caused by the assassination of Ferdinand of Austria (what is most widely regarded as the foremost cause) which prompted all of the Central Powers to declare war at once. Basically it was Germany and all its allies declaring war at once because a prince got pumped full of lead.

If you know this (still pretty simpliflied though, WW1 was triggered by Ferdinand's death, not caused, it would most likely have happend anyway), then why do you basically say that Germany caused the war? Russia for example played a major role in the run-up and actively worked on setting Europe up for a war to secure its access to the Turkish Straits. France also had a great interest in war. In fact, Germany tried to prevent the war until the last possible moment, begging Austrian and Russian officials to intervene up until before the declaration of war.

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

And World War II happened because of a giant reform led by the {Godwin's Law} party which led to the rise of {Godwin's Law} as the leader of Germany by an almost unanimous vote by the populace. The {Godwin's Law} party gained popularity and such because Germany was in a financial hole because they had to pay off the debt of World War I. They were not checked by the rest of the world. They were paying off the rest of the world for helping cause the deaths of 16 million people. They were not checked really. They were bankrupt and destitute and desperate for a huge change in society. {Godwin's Law} was a charismatic leader. Hell I have watched videos and such of his speeches and it is honestly not hard to see why people followed him. Anyways World War II was started by a chain of events... all pretty much lying with Germany's fault.

And thanks for the suggestion on the book. I will pick that up soon, been needing something good to read lately.

Yes, Germany (or rather its people) were at fault, but in many points you can't blame them for it. AH and his party could only rise to power because of the great depression at that time, which was caused mainly by the harsh punishment inflicted upon the losers of WW1 by the winning nations. The allies learned from this and did it the other way round after WW2 - if the Entente had acted like this after 1918, there wouldn't have been a war like this most likely (but a war nonetheless because of the irreconcilable ideologies at that time). As hyperbolic as it may sound, but what you guys are doing with Trump right now shows perfectly how AH could rise to power. If the populace has problems and lives in (sometimes fake) fear, it's easy to elect and follow a charismatic leader who promises solutions. (Btw no attack on you guys, we also have a huge surge in votes for right-wing parties over here because people are just dumb and don't care to think about the consequences their vote may have - same with France.)

There were a lot of reasons and people to blame for WW1, not only Germany. And in effect there were a lot of reasons and people to blame for WW2, which basically was a follow-up to WW1. Blaming only Germany for one or two of them is not only short-sighted, but just provable wrong. And I am not saying this as a German myself (I know how f*cked up our country was in the past and I still blame our people for following the national socialists), I am saying this as a historian who did a lot of research on the topic, not only by scientifc literature but also on the actual sources still available.

Edited by RedDragon, 25 July 2016 - 02:53 AM.

[Baelfire]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

Also according to your laws Holocaust denial is illegal. So yeah freedom of Speech is... not actually there in your nation.

Lol, really? Do you think that the denial of a genocide was what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote your constitution? Really? Really? and again: Really?

You Sir are really a funny little "Unicorn".

[RedDragon]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 25 July 2016 - 02:21 AM, said:

My education on Germany may not be that good... but I still know the difference between literal free speech and controlled speech and demonstration. Unlike Germany, we allow for anyone to demonstrate and speak their beliefs and whatever here. It may seem stupid but at least people are free to be who they are. Your nation will give someone a jail sentence for a flag.

You have a point there, can't deny that. BUT interestingly and ironically, most of our today's laws against those symbols etc. stem directly from the rules imposed on Germany after WW2 by the allies (i. e. mostly the US). So yes, our freedom of speech is not absolute. But common sense dictates that those few limitations are plausible and important for a peaceful society in Germany. I am a staunch defender of human rights, but I see why it is/was necessary to forbid such things after WW2. Today one could debate if it still is needed, but that's another question (sadly, in fact the right-wing parties today rally under the same pretenses as in the 30s, they just lack the symbolism this time). But again, those limitations were largely brought upon us by a nation defending the freedom of speech, one should keep that in mind.

Btw. in the US there are also laws limiting the freedom of speech, one would think of the "obscenity law" for example. IMO it makes sense to have such laws to protect the populace, and mostly children. And over here, it's basically the same. The state wants to protect young people from repeating the errors of the past by following national socialistic/fascistic ideas where in the US children are protected from pornographie etc.

Edited by RedDragon, 25 July 2016 - 03:29 AM.